Abstract
This paper examines whether and how heterogeneity within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups affects business performance using a survey of 21,532 new firms in Japan. The major findings are as follows. First, business performance is not homogeneous among either necessity- or opportunity-based entrepreneurs. Second, the existing theory that necessity-based entrepreneurs tend to show poorer performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs does not necessarily hold when considering heterogeneity within the groups. Specifically, among some types of necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs, necessity-based entrepreneurs can even exhibit better performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The heterogeneity of entrepreneurs has a substantial impact on business performance (Stam et al., 2014; Unger et al., 2011). To control for such heterogeneity, extant studies have distinguished entrepreneurs by employing the framework of necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs (i.e., necessity vs. opportunity) (e.g., Acs et al., 2008; Baptista et al., 2014; Block et al., 2015; Naiki & Ogane, 2022; Nikolova, 2019; Reynolds et al., 2005; Stephan et al., 2020; van Stel et al., 2007; Wennekers et al., 2005).Footnote 1 Compared to opportunity-based entrepreneurs, necessity-based entrepreneurs are inferior in various aspects, such as preparation for starting a business (Block et al., 2015; Caliendo et al., 2015), fundamental characteristics (Bourlès & Cozarenco, 2018; Caliendo et al., 2015), human capital (Block & Wagner, 2010; Block et al., 2015; Calderon et al., 2017), and fundraising (Naiki & Ogane, 2022). Consequently, they tend to show poorer performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs (Baptista et al., 2014; Calderon et al., 2017).
Despite the abundant entrepreneurship literature, a significant gap remains. While the literature emphasizes the need to sufficiently identify the heterogeneity of entrepreneurs, their identification has been limited to the differences between necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs; the entrepreneurship literature does not consider the heterogeneity within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups (i.e., necessity vs. necessity and opportunity vs. opportunity). As there are necessity-based entrepreneurs who have the potential to show good performance and opportunity-based entrepreneurs who do not (Calderon et al., 2017; Cardon et al., 2017a; Milanesi, 2018; Sarasvathy, 2004; Van der Zwan et al., 2016), the existing stereotype that necessity-based entrepreneurs always show poorer performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs may not be accurate. In fact, contrary to that stereotype, mixed findings in the literature have suggested that some types of necessity-based entrepreneurs can even show better performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs (e.g., Henricks, 2002; Milanesi, 2018; Mueller et al., 2017; Sarasvathy, 2004; Van der Zwan et al., 2016). As such, overlooking the heterogeneity within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups may lead to inaccurate results.
Therefore, we examine whether and how these types of heterogeneity affect business performance by capturing heterogeneity within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups. Exploring this issue expands the entrepreneurship literature because of its current emphasis on fully controlling for heterogeneity among entrepreneurs. One of the reasons prior studies have not investigated the issue is that their datasets lack the information necessary to further subdivide necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs. For example, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) survey has only one definition for identifying between necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs.Footnote 2 In contrast, our Japanese dataset enables us to distinguish among four types of necessity-based entrepreneurs and 10 types of opportunity-based entrepreneurs based on their reasons for starting a business. The benefits of using this dataset are twofold.
First, owing to the strict dismissal restrictions in Japan, our Japanese dataset is suitable for identifying heterogeneity among necessity-based entrepreneurs. Unlike in other countries, Japanese individuals are difficult to dismiss unless they are particularly inferior in their characteristics (Hashimoto, 1993; Matsuda, 1984; Schregle, 1993). In other words, our dataset makes it easy to identify between necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed and others. Thus, by using information on the reasons for unemployment, we can capture heterogeneity among necessity-based entrepreneurs. Second, our dataset provides detailed information on passion in opportunity-based entrepreneurs. Although their heterogeneity can be captured by controlling for their passion (de Mol et al., 2020; Milanesi, 2018), the GEM survey does not include the information to control for it. In contrast, our dataset enables us to identify heterogeneity among opportunity-based entrepreneurs according to passion.
The major findings of this paper are as follows. First, necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed show poorer performance than other necessity-based entrepreneurs. In addition, among necessity-based entrepreneurs, only those who were dismissed exhibit poorer performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs. Second, opportunity-based entrepreneurs with passion in the classical sense display better performance than those without such passion. Moreover, among opportunity-based entrepreneurs, only those with passion in the classical sense can exhibit better performance than necessity-based entrepreneurs. Third, necessity-based entrepreneurs, except for those who were dismissed, can display better performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense.
This study makes significant contributions to the entrepreneurship literature on necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs in several ways. First, we capture heterogeneity in entrepreneurs overlooked in the literature. Much of the literature has focused exclusively on the differences between necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs (e.g., Baptista et al., 2014; Block & Wagner, 2010; Block et al., 2015; Bourlès & Cozarenco, 2018; Calderon et al., 2017; Caliendo et al., 2015; Naiki & Ogane, 2022), despite suggesting that there are also distinct differences within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups and these differences lead to those in business performance (e.g., Batt & Colvin, 2011; Estrin et al., 2016; Goerke & Pannenberg, 2011; Sahasranamam & Nandakumar, 2020). Our approach considers the previous insights on the essential differences between necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed and others (Sarasvathy, 2004; Van der Zwan et al., 2016) and between opportunity-based entrepreneurs with and without passion in the classical sense (Cardon & Kirk, 2015; Cardon et al., 2009, 2013; de Mol et al., 2020; Santos & Cardon, 2019). By adopting this approach, we demonstrate that business performance is heterogeneous within both necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups. As such, this study responds to the call in the entrepreneurship literature to adequately distinguish the heterogeneity of entrepreneurs.
Second, we challenge the assumption underlying the existing literature on necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs. Previous studies have created a uniform stereotype that necessity-based entrepreneurs exhibit poorer business performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs. However, because there are various types of necessity- (Sarasvathy, 2004; Van der Zwan et al., 2016) and opportunity-based entrepreneurs (Calderon et al., 2017; Cardon et al., 2017a; Milanesi, 2018), this stereotype can lead to incomplete results. Specifically, even necessity-based entrepreneurs may show better performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs. Thus, by adequately identifying heterogeneity among entrepreneurs, we empirically illustrate that the stereotype does not necessarily hold. Consequently, this study expands our understanding of how entrepreneurs’ heterogeneity affects business performance.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. "Theoretical framework and hypothesis development" section develops theoretical framework and our research hypotheses. "Data and methodology" section describes our dataset and empirical methodology. "Results" section presents the results. "Discussion" section discusses the findings. "Conclusion" section concludes the paper.
Theoretical framework and hypothesis development
Differences between necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs in business performance
The difference in business performance among entrepreneurs largely depends on the differences among the entrepreneurs themselves (Stam et al., 2014; Unger et al., 2011). To control for differences among entrepreneurs, previous studies have often classified entrepreneurs into necessity- and opportunity-based (e.g., Acs et al., 2008; Baptista et al., 2014; Block et al., 2015; Naiki & Ogane, 2022; Nikolova, 2019; Reynolds et al., 2005; Stephan et al., 2020; van Stel et al., 2007; Wennekers et al., 2005). In general, opportunity-based entrepreneurs are described as entrepreneurs who start a business to take advantage of a business opportunity while necessity-based entrepreneurs are described as entrepreneurs who start a business out of necessity. Compared with opportunity-based entrepreneurs, necessity-based entrepreneurs are more likely to show poorer performance for several reasons.
First, necessity-based entrepreneurs are inferior to opportunity-based entrepreneurs in terms of their fundamental characteristics. Specifically, necessity-based entrepreneurs tend to be older (Block & Wagner, 2010; Bourlès & Cozarenco, 2018), have less self-confidence (Caliendo et al., 2015), and have less intrinsic motivation (Bourlès & Cozarenco, 2018). Entrepreneurs with these characteristics lack high-growth intentions, innovativeness (Giotopoulos et al., 2017), and social capital (Hayward et al., 2010), leading to poor performance (Rosenbusch et al., 2011; Stam et al., 2014). Therefore, necessity-based entrepreneurs are more likely to exhibit poorer performance.
Second, necessity-based entrepreneurs have lower levels of human capital than opportunity-based entrepreneurs. For example, necessity-based entrepreneurs tend to be less educated and lack experience (Block & Wagner, 2010; Block et al., 2015; Calderon et al., 2017). Entrepreneurs with less education lack the ability to acquire the knowledge necessary for their businesses (Shane, 2000), and those with less experience lack the ability to solve problems that occur when starting a business (Estrin et al., 2016). This leads to poor business performance (Bosma et al., 2004; Brüderl et al., 1992; Colombo & Grilli, 2010; Haber & Reichel, 2007). Thus, necessity-based entrepreneurs tend to exhibit poorer performance.
Moreover, necessity-based entrepreneurs are more likely to show poorer performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs because they lack financial capital. As mentioned, necessity-based entrepreneurs are inferior to opportunity-based entrepreneurs in terms of fundamental characteristics and human capital. This leads to poor performance, and entrepreneurs with poor performance are less attractive to venture investors (Fried & Hisrich, 1994; Singh et al., 1986); thus, necessity-based entrepreneurs are more likely to have difficulty obtaining external funds. In addition, necessity-based entrepreneurs tend to have insufficient preparation for starting a business (Block et al., 2015; Caliendo et al., 2015) and thus could not prepare sufficient startup funding. Furthermore, because venture investors evaluate the degree of preparation in their funding decisions (Cardon et al., 2017b; Chen et al., 2009), necessity-based entrepreneurs are less likely to receive investment, leading to poor performance (Colombo & Grilli, 2010; Cooper et al., 1994; Honig, 1998). Therefore, necessity-based entrepreneurs tend to exhibit poorer performance.
Despite evidence that necessity-based entrepreneurs exhibit poorer business performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs, the heterogeneity in business performance within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups has not been revealed. Given that there are several differences that can lead to the heterogeneity in business performance among necessity-based entrepreneurs and that among opportunity-based entrepreneurs (Calderon et al., 2017; Cardon et al., 2017a; Milanesi, 2018; Sarasvathy, 2004; Van der Zwan et al., 2016), heterogeneity in business performance will also be observed within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups. Furthermore, contrary to the stereotype, these studies have suggested that some types of necessity-based entrepreneurs can exhibit better performance than some opportunity-based entrepreneurs. Thus, we extend the existing theoretical framework by considering the heterogeneity among necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs.
Heterogeneity within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups in business performance
Heterogeneity among necessity-based entrepreneurs
As mentioned in "Differences between necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs in business performance" section, previous studies have described necessity-based entrepreneurs as those who start a business out of necessity. In other words, these studies have not further subdivided necessity-based entrepreneurs even though several studies have suggested that there are different types of entrepreneurs among them (e.g., Sarasvathy, 2004; Van der Zwan et al., 2016). In particular, necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed from previous employment are essentially different from other necessity-based entrepreneurs. In what follows, we argue that necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed show poorer performance than other necessity-based entrepreneurs.
According to previous studies, necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed would lack the characteristics to show better performance than other necessity-based entrepreneurs. First, necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed can be inferior to other necessity-based entrepreneurs in terms of human capital. Specifically, dismissed individuals tend to be less educated (Batt & Colvin, 2011). Because a lack of education leads to poor performance, necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed will show poorer performance. In addition, given that individuals with short tenures are more likely to be dismissed (Kwon, 2005), necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed would tend to have less work experience. Because a lack of work experience also leads to poor performance, necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed likely exhibit poorer performance.
Second, necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed can be inferior to other necessity-based entrepreneurs in terms of social capital. Specifically, dismissed individuals are more likely to work in small workplaces (Goerke & Pannenberg, 2011) and less likely to join trade unions (Batt & Colvin, 2011; Goerke & Pannenberg, 2011). Because entrepreneurs with low levels of social capital tend to have difficulty raising external funds (Hsu, 2007; Ko & McKelvie, 2018) and such difficulty leads to poor performance (Colombo & Grilli, 2010; Honig, 1998), these entrepreneurs will exhibit poorer performance (Bosma et al., 2004; Stam et al., 2014). Thus, necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed display poorer performance than other necessity-based entrepreneurs.
In addition to these aspects, individuals who show poor performance after starting a business are more likely to have been dismissed in the workplace before starting the business for reasons such as misconduct (Knight & Latreille, 2001) and poor work performance (Kwon, 2005). Hence, we posit Hypothesis 1a:
-
Hypothesis 1a: Necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed show poorer business performance than other necessity-based entrepreneurs.
The heterogeneity in business performance among necessity-based entrepreneurs will also affect the difference in business performance between necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs. Specifically, it is possible that only certain types of necessity-based entrepreneurs exhibit poorer performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs. As previously mentioned, necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed exhibit poorer performance than other necessity-based entrepreneurs. In contrast, considering that other necessity-based entrepreneurs could even create innovation (Sarasvathy, 2004; Van der Zwan et al., 2016), they may not display poorer performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs. Poorer performance of necessity-based entrepreneurs may therefore occur only in those who were dismissed, and there may be no significant difference in business performance between necessity-based entrepreneurs other than those who were dismissed and opportunity-based entrepreneurs. Hence, we propose Hypothesis 1b:
-
Hypothesis 1b: Only necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed show poorer business performance than opportunity-based ones.
Heterogeneity among opportunity-based entrepreneurs
Prior to the first publication of the GEM survey, previous studies attempted to capture the differences among entrepreneurs by distinguishing between pull- and push-motivated entrepreneurs (e.g., Birley & Westhead, 1994; Carter et al., 2003; Shane et al., 1991). To identify such differences, a vast number of studies have employed the GEM survey to explore the concept of necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs (e.g., Acs et al., 2008; Giotopoulos et al., 2017; Laffineur et al., 2017; Larsson & Thulin, 2019; Reynolds et al., 2005; van Stel et al., 2007; Wennekers et al., 2005). However, because the GEM survey has not extensively covered the reasons for starting a business, previous studies using the GEM survey could not adequately grasp the motivation of entrepreneurs, particularly opportunity-based entrepreneurs.Footnote 3 In contrast, recent studies have addressed the limitations of studies employing the GEM survey by capturing opportunity-based entrepreneurs more broadly. Specifically, they have covered various types of opportunity-based entrepreneurs by identifying opportunity-based entrepreneurs as all entrepreneurs except those who start a business out of necessity (e.g., Boudreaux et al., 2019; Bourlès & Cozarenco, 2018; Naiki & Ogane, 2022).
Nevertheless, these studies have scarcely distinguished heterogeneity among opportunity-based entrepreneurs. As with necessity-based entrepreneurs, there would exist heterogeneity among opportunity-based ones. Specifically, previous studies have suggested that opportunity-based entrepreneurs can be classified by passion, which is at the heart of entrepreneurship (Cardon et al., 2005, 2013).
Because passion is defined as a strong inclination toward an activity that people like, that they find important, and in which they invest time and energy (Vallerand et al., 2003, p.757), all entrepreneurs who voluntarily start a business (i.e., opportunity-based entrepreneurs) should have passion. While only three domains of passion—passion for inventing, founding, and developing—had been identified as passion (e.g., Cardon & Kirk, 2015; Cardon et al., 2009, 2013; de Mol et al., 2020; Santos & Cardon, 2019), other domains of passion have also recently been identified as passion.Footnote 4 Considering that the three classical domains of passion are considered to differ from other domains of passion, opportunity-based entrepreneurs can be distinguished between those with and without the three classical domains of passion.Footnote 5 In the arguments below, we propose that opportunity-based entrepreneurs with passion in the classical sense show higher performance than those without such passion.
Although passion does not directly enhance business performance, it can lead to good performance when mediated by the goals for pursuing business performance (Baum & Locke, 2004). Because of its nature, passion in the classical sense is motivated by pursuing business opportunities, which is directly linked to good performance. Thus, entrepreneurs with such passion will exhibit better performance. In contrast, passion in the non-classical sense is motivated by goals other than pursuing business opportunities. This suggests that entrepreneurs with this type of passion will not pursue good performance and thus would not display higher performance. Moreover, passion in the classical sense can drive creativity, persistence, and opportunity recognition (Cardon et al., 2009, 2013) and increase external funds from venture investors (Hsu et al., 2014; Mitteness et al., 2012), leading to good performance. Hence, we posit Hypothesis 2a:
-
Hypothesis 2a: Opportunity-based entrepreneurs with passion in the classical sense exhibit better business performance than those without passion in the classical sense.
Because of the definition of passion, entrepreneurs who are forced to start a business out of necessity (i.e., necessity-based entrepreneurs) may not have passion. This suggests that passion is also a factor that leads opportunity-based entrepreneurs to perform better than necessity-based entrepreneurs. However, opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense do not have passion that can lead to good performance. Thus, necessity-based entrepreneurs and opportunity-based entrepreneurs without such passion have in common that neither has the passion necessary to enhance business performance.
Moreover, several studies have suggested that opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense lack superior fundamental characteristics and high levels of human capital (e.g., Capelleras et al., 2019; Giotopoulos et al., 2017). Because this prevents these entrepreneurs from exhibiting good performance, opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense may not display better performance than necessity-based entrepreneurs. In contrast, opportunity-based entrepreneurs with passion in the classical sense have both passion that will lead to good performance and the characteristics to exhibit good performance, and thus will show better performance. As such, better performance in opportunity-based entrepreneurs may occur only in those with passion in the classical sense, and there may be no significant difference in business performance between opportunity-based entrepreneurs without such passion and necessity-based entrepreneurs. Hence, we posit Hypothesis 2b:
-
Hypothesis 2b: Only opportunity-based entrepreneurs with passion in the classical sense show better business performance than necessity-based entrepreneurs.
Comparison between necessity-based entrepreneurs (except for those who were dismissed) and opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense
As mentioned in "Differences between necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs in business performance" section, the major reasons necessity-based entrepreneurs tend to exhibit poorer performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs are the lack of fundamental characteristics, human capital, preparation for starting a business, and financial capital. Indeed, necessity-based entrepreneurs tend to have insufficient preparation to start a business. However, considering that opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense will not pursue good performance, they are also unlikely to prepare to show good performance. In addition, as mentioned in "Heterogeneity among opportunity-based entrepreneurs" section, opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense would lack superior fundamental characteristics and high levels of human capital. This further prevents these entrepreneurs from obtaining sufficient external funds. Thus, opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense are likely to lack all four.
On the other hand, although necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed would also lack the ability to show good performance, other necessity-based entrepreneurs may not. In fact, some types of necessity-based entrepreneurs might not have inferior fundamental characteristics or low levels of human capital (Sarasvathy, 2004; Van der Zwan et al., 2016). For these reasons, there might be no significant difference in business performance between necessity-based entrepreneurs, except for those who were dismissed, and opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense. On the contrary, as explained below, these necessity-based entrepreneurs could even exhibit better performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs without such passion.
The central motivation for starting a business of necessity-based entrepreneurs is to earn a living (Carsrud & Brännback, 2011). Thus, for this purpose, they should be motivated to show good performance. In contrast, as mentioned in "Heterogeneity among opportunity-based entrepreneurs" section, opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense start a business neither out of necessity nor to pursue business opportunities. Thus, they would not be motivated to exhibit good performance. Because entrepreneurs’ motivation can enhance their performance even when controlling for other factors, such as their fundamental characteristics and human capital (Mueller et al., 2017), necessity-based entrepreneurs could display better performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense. Taken together with the fact that necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed lack the ability to exhibit good performance, we posit Hypothesis 3:
-
Hypothesis 3: Necessity-based entrepreneurs (except for those who were dismissed) show better business performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense.
Data and methodology
Data
In this paper, we use the Survey on Business Startups in 1992–2016 except for 1997, 1998, 2002–2004, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2015.Footnote 6, Footnote 7 Although performance of new firms greatly depends on their opening years (Ejermo & Xiao, 2014), aggregating data from several years allows us to mitigate such effects. The survey was conducted by the Japan Finance Corporation Research Institute, which is part of a major government-controlled financial institution in Japan, the Japan Finance Corporation (JFC). A unit of the JFC—the Micro Business and Individual Unit—provides financial and start-up support to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) for policy objectives.Footnote 8 In Japan, most SMEs and micro businesses apply for loans from the JFC because even entrepreneurs who cannot receive funds from other institutions can obtain JFC loans.
This survey aims to ascertain the actual status of business startups and it targets firms that (1) received loans from the Micro Business and Individual Unit between April and September in the previous year of the survey and (2) were established within one year of receiving financing (including pre-startup firms). We acknowledge several sample selection biases associated with sample reduction. First, this dataset does not include individuals who do not start a business. Second, our dataset does not include firms that do not receive financing from the JFC. Third, it does not include firms that do not answer the questionnaire. Furthermore, the dataset does not include firms that do not have the information necessary for our analyses. As a result, 21,532 firms remain in the sample.
While we acknowledge these limitations, the benefits of employing our dataset offset them. Specifically, by focusing on entrepreneurs who borrow from governmental financial institutions, our dataset covers various types of necessity-based entrepreneurs. Because previous studies have often focused on new technology-based firms (e.g., Colombo & Grilli, 2010; Ganotakis, 2012; Nuscheler et al., 2019), their datasets generally include neither necessity- nor opportunity-based entrepreneurs who are not motivated by pursuing business opportunities. Thus, these datasets are not suitable for capturing heterogeneity within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups. In contrast, our dataset covers various types of necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs, enabling us to grasp both types of heterogeneity.
Variables
Dependent variable
In line with previous studies (e.g., Unger et al., 2011), we measure business performance by profit.Footnote 9 This variable is coded as 1 if a firm has a profit and 0 otherwise.Footnote 10 In our sample, 64.2% have profits, and 35.8% do not.
Independent variables
Similar to recent research on necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs (e.g., Boudreaux et al., 2019; Bourlès & Cozarenco, 2018; Naiki & Ogane, 2022), we categorize all entrepreneurs except those who start a business out of necessity as opportunity-based entrepreneurs. In addition, we subdivide opportunity-based entrepreneurs using the question “What is the most important reason for starting your business?”Footnote 11 There are 10 possible responses to this question, excluding responses that can represent necessity-based entrepreneurs (i.e., “having no job option except for starting a business”Footnote 12): (a) wanting to increase income (increase income, 13.8%), (b) wanting to work freely (work freely, 19.3%), (c) being interested in business management (business management, 13.6%), (d) wanting to commercialize their technologies/ideas (commercialize technologies/ideas, 12.1%), (e) wanting to use their experience/knowledge/qualifications acquired in their prior jobs (use experience/knowledge/qualifications, 24.4%), (f) wanting to use their hobbies/special ability at work (use hobbies/special ability, 1.4%), (g) wanting to work to help society (help society, 5.8%), (h) wanting to work regardless of age/sex (work regardless of age/sex, 2.0%), (i) wanting to have enough free time/peace of mind (have enough free time/peace of mind, 2.4%), (j) other reasons (opportunity-based entrepreneurs for other reasons, 5.2%).
Based on entrepreneurial passion literature, we measure entrepreneurs with and without passion in the classical sense using these nine items, except for (j). As mentioned in "Heterogeneity among opportunity-based entrepreneurs" section, because (a) and (c)–(e) are consistent with passion in the classical sense (Cardon & Kirk, 2015; Cardon et al., 2009, 2013; de Mol et al., 2020; Santos & Cardon, 2019), we use these items as proxies for opportunity-based entrepreneurs with passion in the classical sense. Specifically, among passion in the classical sense (i.e., passion for inventing, founding, and developing), we measure passion for inventing by (d) and (e), founding by (c) and (e), and developing by (a).Footnote 13 However, (b), (f)–(h), and (i) do not fall into passion in the classical sense; specifically, they are close to passion for freedom (Henricks, 2002), hobbies (Milanesi, 2018), and social missions (Cardon et al., 2017a). Thus, we employ these items as proxies for opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense. These 10 variables corresponding to (a)–(j) are coded as 1 if a respondent selects the reason and 0 otherwise.
In addition, to identify heterogeneity among necessity-based entrepreneurs, we separate entrepreneurs who respond “having no job option except for starting a business.” Specifically, we classify these entrepreneurs into necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed (dismissal) and others using another question in the survey, “Why did you leave your previous workplace just prior to your current job?”Footnote 14 Moreover, given that heterogeneity may also exist among necessity-based entrepreneurs beyond those who were dismissed, we identify necessity-based entrepreneurs other than those who were dismissed. Specifically, because our dataset covers necessity-based entrepreneurs due to bankruptcy (bankruptcy), withdrawal (withdrawal), and other reasons (necessity-based entrepreneurs for other reasons), we distinguish heterogeneity among these entrepreneurs. These four variables are coded as 1 if a respondent selects the reason and 0 otherwise. Among entrepreneurs who respond “having no job option except for starting a business,” 10.6% state dismissal, 22.1% bankruptcy, 19.8% withdrawal, and 47.5% necessity-based entrepreneurs for other reasons.
Control variables
In line with previous studies, we employ three variables for human capital, which are representative of the entrepreneurship literature (Unger et al., 2011). Specifically, we control for higher education as it contributes to increasing business performance (Bosma et al., 2004; Colombo & Grilli, 2010) by acquiring the knowledge necessary for entrepreneurs’ businesses (Shane, 2000). This variable is coded as 1 if an entrepreneur is a university or graduate school graduate and 0 otherwise. In addition, we control for industry-specific experience as it leads to good performance (Bosma et al., 2004; Ganotakis, 2012) by obtaining knowledge about customers and effective business strategies (Shane & Stuart, 2002). We measure this variable by the number of years of an entrepreneur’s experience related to his/her current job. Moreover, we control for managerial experience as it provides insights into personnel management, contract negotiation, and asset deployment (Becker-Blease & Sohl, 2015). This also contributes to increasing business performance (Bosma et al., 2004; Brüderl et al., 1992). This variable is coded as 1 if an entrepreneur was in a managerial position in a prior job and 0 otherwise.
In addition, we control for age and male for the characteristics of entrepreneurs because these two variables are often used in studies on performance (e.g., Baptista et al., 2014; Toft-Kehler et al, 2014). The latter variable is coded as 1 for male and 0 for female.
Empirical approaches
Using the dataset and variables just described, we examine whether and how the heterogeneity within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups affects business performance. Since the dependent variable is a binary variable, we estimate a probit model of the form:
where \({\text{PROFIT}}_{i}\), \({\mathbf{INDEPENDENT}\_\mathbf{VARIABLES}}_{{\varvec{i}}}\), and \({{CONTROL}\_{VARIABLES}}_{i}\) represent our dependent, independent, and control variables introduced in "Variables" section, respectively. Dummy variables for opening year and industry are also included in the regressions.
Results
Comparison among necessity-based entrepreneurs (Hypothesis 1)
Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics and correlation matrix for all variables. To detect potential multicollinearity problems, we calculated variance inflation factors (VIFs) for all variables. The highest VIF in the sample of only necessity-based entrepreneurs is 2.46, and that of only opportunity-based entrepreneurs is 4.39. Because these values are substantially below the conventional cutoff value of 10, multicollinearity problems are not a major concern.Footnote 15
Table 2 reports the results of the probit estimations with regression Eq. (1), where the dependent variable is profit. Models 1 and 2 present the results of including only necessity-based entrepreneurs as samples; specifically, Model 1 is the baseline model with only control variables, and Model 2 includes the independent variables to test Hypothesis 1a. The marginal effect of dismissal is negative and statistically significant (β = −0.232, p < 0.05), suggesting that necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed exhibit poorer business performance than other necessity-based entrepreneurs. This result supports Hypothesis 1a.
Models 3 and 4 present the results when all entrepreneurs are included to test Hypothesis 1b. The marginal effect of dismissal is negative and statistically significant (β = −0.106, p < 0.01) while the marginal effects of bankruptcy, withdrawal, and necessity-based entrepreneurs for other reasons are statistically insignificant. This result suggests that only necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed display poorer business performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs, supporting Hypothesis 1b.
Comparison among opportunity-based entrepreneurs (Hypothesis 2)
According to Hypothesis 2, we perform the same analyses as in Table 2 while focusing on opportunity-based entrepreneurs; the results are reported in Table 3. Because we cannot identify whether opportunity-based entrepreneurs for other reasons have passion in the classical sense, we exclude them from these analyses.
Models 1 and 2 present the results of including all opportunity-based entrepreneurs, except those for other reasons, in the sample. Specifically, Model 1 is the baseline model with only control variables, and Model 2 includes the independent variables to test Hypothesis 2a. The marginal effects of increase income, business management, and use experience/knowledge/qualifications are positive and statistically significant (increase income: β = 0.079, p < 0.01; business management: β = 0.053, p < 0.01; use experience/knowledge/qualifications: β = 0.027, p < 0.05), suggesting that opportunity-based entrepreneurs with passion in the classical sense exhibit better performance than those without. This result provides support for Hypothesis 2a. However, the marginal effect of commercialize technologies/ideas is statistically insignificant, suggesting that Hypothesis 2a is not supported.
Furthermore, in line with Hypothesis 2b, Model 3 employs all entrepreneurs except opportunity-based entrepreneurs for other reasons as a sample. Among the nine types of opportunity-based entrepreneurs mentioned in "Independent variables" section, although the marginal effect of work freely is also positive and statistically significant (β = 0.053, p < 0.10), the marginal effects of increase income, business management, and use experience/knowledge/qualifications are positive and statistically significant (increase income: β = 0.116, p < 0.01; business management: β = 0.091, p < 0.01; use experience/knowledge/qualifications: β = 0.066, p < 0.05). This result possibly suggests that the better performance of opportunity-based entrepreneurs occurs only in those with passion in the classical sense, which seems to support Hypothesis 2b.
Comparison between necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs (Hypothesis 3)
To test Hypothesis 3, in Table 4, we compare profit between necessity-based entrepreneurs, except for those who were dismissed, and opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense.
Models 1 and 2 present the results of employing entrepreneurs who want to use their hobbies/special abilities at work as such opportunity-based entrepreneurs; specifically, Model 1 is the baseline model with only control variables, and Model 2 includes the independent variables. In Model 2, the marginal effects of bankruptcy, withdrawal, and necessity-based entrepreneurs for other reasons are positive and statistically significant (bankruptcy: β = 0.123, p < 0.05; withdrawal: β = 0.101, p < 0.10; necessity-based entrepreneurs for other reasons: β = 0.147, p < 0.05). This suggests that necessity-based entrepreneurs, except for those who were dismissed, exhibit better business performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense, which supports Hypothesis 3.
Models 3 and 4 report the results of including entrepreneurs who want to work freely as opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense. In Model 4, while the marginal effects of bankruptcy and necessity-based entrepreneurs for other reasons are statistically insignificant, that of withdrawal is negative and statistically significant (β = −0.044, p < 0.10). This result does not support Hypothesis 3.
Models 5 and 6 present the results of employing entrepreneurs who want to work regardless of age or sex as opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense. In Model 6, the marginal effects of bankruptcy, withdrawal, and necessity-based entrepreneurs for other reasons are positive and statistically significant (bankruptcy: β = 0.111, p < 0.05; withdrawal: β = 0.083, p < 0.10; necessity-based entrepreneurs for other reasons: β = 0.140, p < 0.05). This suggests that necessity-based entrepreneurs, except for those who were dismissed, display better performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense, which supports Hypothesis 3.
Models 7 and 8 report the results of including entrepreneurs who want to have enough free time/peace of mind as opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense. In Model 8, the marginal effects of bankruptcy, withdrawal, and necessity-based entrepreneurs for other reasons are statistically insignificant. This result does not support Hypothesis 3.
Models 9 and 10 present the results of employing entrepreneurs who want to work to help society as opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense. In Model 10, the marginal effects of bankruptcy, withdrawal, and necessity-based entrepreneurs for other reasons are statistically insignificant. This result does not support Hypothesis 3.
Robustness checks
To increase the rigor of the results in "Comparison among necessity-based entrepreneurs (Hypothesis 1)", "Comparison among opportunity-based entrepreneurs (Hypothesis 2)", and "Comparison between necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs (Hypothesis 3)" sections, we performed several robustness checks.
First, we examined how our main results are robust to unobserved confounders using a method developed by Oster (2019), which enables us to verify the extent to which the observed results are robust to unobserved bias (see Table 5).Footnote 16 The results of this method are adequately robust to unobserved bias, suggesting that our results hold even if they are driven by factors for which we did not control, as far as the method requirements are satisfied. This further implies that, although there were several potential factors that affect performance, (i) necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed show poorer performance than other necessity-based entrepreneurs; (ii) opportunity-based entrepreneurs with passion in the classical sense exhibit better business performance than those without; (iii) necessity-based entrepreneurs, except for those who were dismissed, display better performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense.
Second, we tested the validity of our hypothesis on heterogeneity among necessity-based entrepreneurs. Specifically, although the results in Model 2 of Table 2 suggest that necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed exhibit poorer performance than other necessity-based entrepreneurs, it is possible that necessity-based entrepreneurs, except for those who were dismissed, also display poorer performance among necessity-based entrepreneurs. To test this possibility, we replicated Model 2 of Table 2 by replacing dismissal with bankruptcy, withdrawal, and necessity-based entrepreneurs for other reasons as independent variables (see Table 6). As a result, we confirmed the validity of the hypothesis; specifically, necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed display poorer performance among necessity-based entrepreneurs while other necessity-based entrepreneurs are unlikely to exhibit poorer performance.
Third, we tested the validity of our hypothesis on heterogeneity among opportunity-based entrepreneurs. Specifically, we investigated whether all measures for opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense are significantly negative or statistically insignificant (see Table 7). This is because, if there are any significantly positive variables for opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense, it would mean that (1) our hypothesis that those with passion in the classical sense show better performance than those without may not hold, or (2) our classification between those with and without passion in the classical sense might be inaccurate. As a result, none of the proxies for opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense are significantly positive. Thus, the results deny these two possibilities, suggesting that our hypothesis on opportunity-based entrepreneurs and their classifications are valid.
We further validated the hypothesis regarding opportunity-based entrepreneurs from two additional perspectives (see Table 8). Since we could not identify whether and how opportunity-based entrepreneurs for other reasons have passion in the classical sense, we did not include them in testing this hypothesis. Thus, we repeated Model 2 of Table 3, including opportunity-based entrepreneurs for other reasons in the sample, and confirmed that our results are robust to those in Model 2 of Table 3. Next, we performed the same analysis with Model 1 of Table 7 while considering opportunity-based entrepreneurs for other reasons as those without passion in the classical sense. The results also hold in this case. Thus, our hypothesis that opportunity-based entrepreneurs with passion in the classical sense show better performance than those without is supported regardless of whether opportunity-based entrepreneurs for other reasons have passion in the classical sense.
Discussion
Implications
This study examined whether and how the heterogeneity within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups affects business performance and investigated the possibility that necessity-based entrepreneurs can display better performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs depending on the reasons for starting a business. We found that business performance is heterogeneous among both necessity-based and opportunity-based entrepreneurs. We also found that the conventional framework of necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs only partially grasps the difference in business performance between them. In fact, among some types of necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs, necessity-based entrepreneurs can display better performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs.
Our study contributes to the entrepreneurship literature on necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs in several ways. Specifically, we control for heterogeneity within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups. Previous studies have examined how the differences between these two types of entrepreneurs affects their business performance (e.g., Baptista et al., 2014; Calderon et al., 2017); however, these studies have not adequately identified the heterogeneity within the groups even though they have emphasized the need to do so. This study distinguishes such heterogeneity by using detailed reasons for starting a business. We find that business performance is not homogeneous within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups.
More specifically, we demonstrate that necessity-based entrepreneurs’ performance differs depending on whether they start a business because of dismissal from previous employment. Previous studies have suggested essential differences between necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed and others (e.g., Sarasvathy, 2004; Van der Zwan et al., 2016) and that those who were dismissed would exhibit poorer performance than other necessity-based entrepreneurs (e.g., Batt & Colvin, 2011; Goerke & Pannenberg, 2011). To test this prediction, we focus on the difference in the levels of human and social capital between these two types of necessity-based entrepreneurs and provide evidence of heterogeneity in business performance among necessity-based entrepreneurs. We also find that, among necessity-based entrepreneurs, only those who were dismissed exhibit poorer performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs. This result suggests that the poorer performance of necessity-based entrepreneurs largely depends on whether they were dismissed. Our results also suggest that, except for necessity-based entrepreneurs who were dismissed, there is no difference in business performance between necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs. As heterogeneity among necessity-based entrepreneurs has been overlooked in the existing literature, we contribute to the literature by capturing such heterogeneity.
Similarly, our study illustrates that opportunity-based entrepreneurs’ business performance differs depending on whether they have passion in the classical sense. Previous studies have suggested marked differences between opportunity-based entrepreneurs with and without passion in the classical sense (e.g., Cardon & Kirk, 2015; Cardon et al., 2009, 2013; de Mol et al., 2020; Santos & Cardon, 2019) and that those with passion in the classical sense have the potential to show better performance than those without (e.g., Baum & Locke, 2004; Cardon et al., 2009, 2013). To verify this assumption, we introduce such a difference among opportunity-based entrepreneurs. We find that opportunity-based entrepreneurs with passion in the classical sense tend to perform better than those without such passion. This result suggests that there is also a significant difference in business performance between opportunity-based entrepreneurs with and without passion in the classical sense. We also find that, among opportunity-based entrepreneurs, only those with passion in the classical sense may exhibit better performance than necessity-based entrepreneurs. This result suggests that better performance of opportunity-based entrepreneurs stems from those with passion in the classical sense. Although previous studies have argued that there are distinct differences between passion in the classical and non-classical senses (e.g., Cardon et al., 2013), these studies have yet to fully reveal the differences between the two. Thus, our study also contributes to the passion literature by demonstrating that the differences between these two types of passion can lead to differences in business performance.
Furthermore, we provide empirical evidence that some types of necessity-based entrepreneurs can exhibit better business performance than some types of opportunity-based entrepreneurs. Previous studies have independently examined (1) how the differences between necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs affects performance and (2) how entrepreneurs’ motivation affects performance (e.g., Baptista et al., 2014; Calderon et al., 2017) even though they are closely related to each other (Mueller et al., 2017). This study investigates their mutual effects by combining these two previously separate concepts. We find that necessity-based entrepreneurs, except for those who were dismissed, can display better performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense. This study expands our understanding of how heterogeneity among entrepreneurs affects business performance by illustrating that the existing theory that necessity-based entrepreneurs tend to display poorer performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs does not necessarily hold.
Our study also offers important practical implications. In particular, we provide new evaluation criteria for venture investors to accurately predict the future performance of opportunity-based entrepreneurs. Specifically, because our results show that opportunity-based entrepreneurs with passion in the classical sense tend to show better performance than those without, their future potential might be measured by their passion. Given that better performance of opportunity-based entrepreneurs is likely to stem from those with passion in the classical sense, venture investors can expect to obtain larger returns on investment by providing more funds to these entrepreneurs. Moreover, although venture investors generally do not provide funds to necessity-based entrepreneurs because they are unwilling to provide financing to entrepreneurs with low profitability (Fried & Hisrich, 1994; Singh et al., 1986), this study indicates the possibility that some types of necessity-based entrepreneurs could be good investment opportunities for investors. Specifically, our results suggest that some types of necessity-based entrepreneurs can display better performance than some opportunity-based entrepreneurs. Thus, venture investors should not exclude all necessity-based entrepreneurs from investment targets before screening them simply because they start a business out of necessity. On balance, it is important for investors not to be constrained by the existing stereotype that necessity-based entrepreneurs always exhibit poorer performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs.
Furthermore, because we checked the robustness of our results using Oster’s (2019) approach, which enables us to examine the extent to which the observed results are robust to unobserved bias. Thus, the results in this study are likely to be adequately robust to unobserved bias. In other words, our results suggest that the heterogeneity within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups affects business performance even when controlling for unobserved confounders such as entrepreneurs’ human and social capital. This implies that distinguishing between these types of heterogeneity is useful for predicting the future performance of new firms. Thus, venture investors should look at the heterogeneity within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups as well as other characteristics of entrepreneurs.
Limitations and future research
As with other studies, this study has several limitations that can also be interesting avenues for future research.
First, we could not provide precise reasons for the lack of strong support for Hypothesis 3. Specifically, while we demonstrated that necessity-based entrepreneurs, except for those who were dismissed, can exhibit better performance than opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense, this tendency was not observed in several measures for such opportunity-based entrepreneurs. One possible explanation is that there would be distinct differences among passion in the non-classical sense as well as distinct differences between passion in the classical and non-classical senses. Given that previous studies have yet to fully reveal how differences in passion in the non-classical sense lead to entrepreneurial performance (e.g., Cardon & Kirk, 2015; Cardon et al., 2009, 2013; de Mol et al., 2020; Santos & Cardon, 2019), exploring such differences will be an important subject for future studies.
Second, although we employed five proxies for opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense, other measures also exist. For example, these measures can include hybrid entrepreneurs (Shaw & Williams, 2004), user entrepreneurs (Shah & Tripsas, 2007), and tribal entrepreneurs (Mardon et al., 2018). Because there may be other opportunity-based entrepreneurs without passion in the classical sense who display poorer performance than necessity-based entrepreneurs, except for those who were dismissed, replicating this study using these proxies can be an interesting avenue for future research.
Third, due to data limitations, we did not adopt other proxies for business performance. Although our dataset had the advantage of covering various types of necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs, our proxy for business performance was limited. Given the various proxies for business performance (e.g., Unger et al., 2011), it would be worthwhile to explore the effects on performance using these proxies.
Fourth, we did not examine the effects on entrepreneurial performance other than business performance. For example, considering that business performance is closely related to external financing (Colombo & Grilli, 2010; Gimmon & Levie, 2010; Honig, 1998; Ko & McKelvie, 2018; Piva & Rossi-Lamastra, 2018), heterogeneity within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups can also affect funding performance. Because ignoring the heterogeneity may lead to inaccurate results, controlling for it in the entrepreneurial finance literature might be important.
Finally, the cross-sectional nature of the data is a potential limitation of this study. Using longitudinal data can enable us to investigate how performance changes over time; this may provide more insights into how the heterogeneity within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups affects business performance. Thus, there is a need for future research to explore the issue with longitudinal data.
Conclusion
The differences among entrepreneurs largely affect their business success. While previous studies have mainly focused on the differences between necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs, this study highlights the importance of distinguishing the heterogeneity within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups, making contributions to both theory and practice. In theory, by combining previous insights that there are distinct differences within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups, we demonstrate that business performance differs significantly also within these groups. This helps us to better understand how the heterogeneity of entrepreneurs affects business performance. In practice, by identifying the heterogeneity of entrepreneurs not captured by the conventional framework of necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs, we offer new evaluation criteria for venture investors to increase their return on investment. Specifically, they should focus on the heterogeneity within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneur groups rather than the differences between these two types of entrepreneurs. Taken together with the aforementioned potential avenues for future research, this study advances the extant literature on entrepreneurship.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Notes
In general, these entrepreneurs are defined as those who start a business out of necessity (necessity-based entrepreneurs) and those who start one to take advantage of business opportunities (opportunity-based entrepreneurs).
The GEM survey is one of the most frequently employed datasets in the entrepreneurship literature.
Most studies using the GEM survey have not covered opportunity-based entrepreneurs except for those who start a business to take advantage of a business opportunity (e.g., Acs et al., 2008; Koellinger & Thurik, 2012; Lepoutre et al., 2013; Pinillos & Reyes, 2011; Reynolds et al., 2005; van Stel et al., 2007; Wennekers et al., 2005).
For simplicity, hereinafter, we refer to the three classical domains of passion as “passion in the classical sense” and refer to other domains of passion as “passion in the non-classical sense.”
The surveys in these years do not cover the information necessary for our analyses. For example, multiple-answer questions are used in several years to ask for the reasons for starting a business, which prevents us from accurately distinguishing the heterogeneity of entrepreneurs.
An average response rate in each year in our sample is 26.2%.
Micro businesses are also included in these SMEs.
According to Unger et al. (2011), who conducted a meta-analysis on entrepreneurial success, profit is one of the most major proxies for business performance.
Because our dataset does not cover the amount of profit, we use this binary information.
Only a single answer is allowed.
As with the case in opportunity-based entrepreneurs, only a single answer is allowed.
The values of 2.46 and 4.39 are even below the conservative cutoff of 5.0, mentioned in Studenmund (2016).
By employing this approach, we can calculate consistent estimates of the bias-adjusted treatment effects under the two assumptions: (1) unobserved controls are as important as observed controls in explaining the treatment (\(\delta =1\)); (2) \({R}_{max}=1.3\widetilde{R}\) where \(\widetilde{R}\) is R-squared from the regression with observed controls. These two assumptions are considered strict and conservative because they are set so that, in the case of nonrandomized studies, only 45% of the results could survive even among articles with a certain number of citations published in the top four journals in economics (i.e., American Economic Review, Quarterly Journal of Economics, The Journal of Political Economy, and Econometrica).
References
Acs, Z. J., Desai, S., & Hessels, J. (2008). Entrepreneurship, economic development and institutions. Small Business Economics, 31(3), 219–234.
Baptista, R., Karaöz, M., & Mendonça, J. (2014). The impact of human capital on the early success of necessity versus opportunity-based entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 42(4), 831–847.
Batt, R., & Colvin, A. J. (2011). An employment systems approach to turnover: Human resources practices, quits, dismissals, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 695–717.
Baum, J. R., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 587–598.
Becker-Blease, J. R., & Sohl, J. E. (2015). New venture legitimacy: The conditions for angel investors. Small Business Economics, 45(4), 735–749.
Birley, S., & Westhead, P. (1994). A taxonomy of business start-up reasons and their impact on firm growth and size. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(1), 7–31.
Block, J. H., Kohn, K., Miller, D., & Ullrich, K. (2015). Necessity entrepreneurship and competitive strategy. Small Business Economics, 44(1), 37–54.
Block, J. H., & Wagner, M. (2010). Necessity and opportunity entrepreneurs in Germany: Characteristics and earnings differentials. Schmalenbach Business Review, 62(2), 154–174.
Bosma, N., van Praag, M., Thurik, A. R., & de Wit, G. (2004). The value of human and social capital investments for the business performance of startups. Small Business Economics, 23(3), 227–236.
Boudreaux, C. J., Nikolaev, B. N., & Klein, P. (2019). Socio-cognitive traits and entrepreneurship: The moderating role of economic institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(1), 178–196.
Bourlès, R., & Cozarenco, A. (2018). Entrepreneurial motivation and business performance: Evidence from a French microfinance institution. Small Business Economics, 51(4), 943–963.
Brüderl, J., Preisendörfer, P., & Ziegler, R. (1992). Survival chances of newly founded business organizations. American Sociological Review, 57(2), 227–242.
Calderon, G., Iacovone, L., & Juarez, L. (2017). Opportunity versus necessity: Understanding the heterogeneity of female micro-entrepreneurs. World Bank Economic Review, 30(Supplement_1), S86–S96.
Caliendo, M., Hogenacker, J., Künn, S., & Wießner, F. (2015). Subsidized start-ups out of unemployment: A comparison to regular business start-ups. Small Business Economics, 45(1), 165–190.
Capelleras, J. L., Contin-Pilart, I., Larraza-Kintana, M., & Martin-Sanchez, V. (2019). Entrepreneurs’ human capital and growth aspirations: The moderating role of regional entrepreneurial culture. Small Business Economics, 52(1), 3–25.
Cardon, M. S., Glauser, M., & Murnieks, C. Y. (2017a). Passion for what? Expanding the domains of entrepreneurial passion. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 8, 24–32.
Cardon, M. S., Gregoire, D. A., Stevens, C. E., & Patel, P. C. (2013). Measuring entrepreneurial passion: Conceptual foundations and scale validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(3), 373–396.
Cardon, M. S., & Kirk, C. P. (2015). Entrepreneurial passion as mediator of the self-efficacy to persistence relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(5), 1027–1050.
Cardon, M. S., Mitteness, C., & Sudek, R. (2017b). Motivational cues and angel investing: Interactions among enthusiasm, preparedness, and commitment. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1057–1085.
Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. (2009). The nature and experience of entrepreneurial passion. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 511–532.
Cardon, M. S., Zietsma, C., Saparito, P., Matherne, B. P., & Davis, C. (2005). A tale of passion: New insights into entrepreneurship from a parenthood metaphor. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 23–45.
Carsrud, A., & Brännback, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial motivations: What do we still need to know? Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 9–26.
Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., & Gatewood, E. J. (2003). The career reasons of nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 13–39.
Chen, X. P., Yao, X., & Kotha, S. (2009). Entrepreneur passion and preparedness in business plan presentations: A persuasion analysis of venture capitalists’ funding decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 199–214.
Colombo, M. G., & Grilli, L. (2010). On growth drivers of high-tech start-ups: Exploring the role of founders’ human capital and venture capital. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(6), 610–626.
Cooper, A. C., Gimeno-Gascon, F. J., & Woo, C. Y. (1994). Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(5), 371–395.
de Mol, E., Cardon, M. S., de Jong, B., Khapova, S. N., & Elfring, T. (2020). Entrepreneurial passion diversity in new venture teams: An empirical examination of short- and long-term performance implications. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(4), 105965.
Ejermo, O., & Xiao, J. (2014). Entrepreneurship and survival over the business cycle: How do new technology-based firms differ? Small Business Economics, 43(2), 411–426.
Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Stephan, U. (2016). Human capital in social and commercial entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(4), 449–467.
Fried, V. H., & Hisrich, R. D. (1994). Toward a model of venture capital investment decision making. Financial Management, 23(3), 28–37.
Ganotakis, P. (2012). Founders’ human capital and the performance of UK new technology based firms. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 495–515.
Gimmon, E., & Levie, J. (2010). Founder’s human capital, external investment, and the survival of new high-technology ventures. Research Policy, 39(9), 1214–1226.
Giotopoulos, I., Kontolaimou, A., & Tsakanikas, A. (2017). Drivers of high-quality entrepreneurship: What changes did the crisis bring about? Small Business Economics, 48(4), 913–930.
Goerke, L., & Pannenberg, M. (2011). Trade union membership and dismissals. Labour Economics, 18(6), 810–821.
Haber, S., & Reichel, A. (2007). The cumulative nature of the entrepreneurial process: The contribution of human capital, planning and environment resources to small venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 119–145.
Hashimoto, M. (1993). Aspects of labor market adjustments in Japan. Journal of Labor Economics, 11(1), 136–161.
Hayward, M. L., Forster, W. R., Sarasvathy, S. D., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2010). Beyond hubris: How highly confident entrepreneurs rebound to venture again. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(6), 569–578.
Henricks, M. (2002). Not just a living: The complete guide to creating a business that gives you a life. Basic Books.
Honig, B. (1998). What determines success? Examining the human, financial, and social capital of Jamaican microentrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(5), 371–394.
Hsu, D. H. (2007). Experienced entrepreneurial founders, organizational capital, and venture capital funding. Research Policy, 36(5), 722–741.
Hsu, D. K., Haynie, J. M., Simmons, S. A., & McKelvie, A. (2014). What matters, matters differently: A conjoint analysis of the decision policies of angel and venture capital investors. Venture Capital, 16(1), 1–25.
Knight, K. G., & Latreille, P. L. (2001). Gender effects in British unfair dismissal tribunal hearings. ILR Review, 54(4), 816–834.
Ko, E. J., & McKelvie, A. (2018). Signaling for more money: The roles of founders’ human capital and investor prominence in resource acquisition across different stages of firm development. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(4), 438–454.
Koellinger, P. D., & Thurik, A. R. (2012). Entrepreneurship and the business cycle. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(4), 1143–1156.
Kwon, I. (2005). Threat of dismissal: Incentive or sorting? Journal of Labor Economics, 23(4), 797–838.
Laffineur, C., Barbosa, S. D., Fayolle, A., & Nziali, E. (2017). Active labor market programs’ effects on entrepreneurship and unemployment. Small Business Economics, 49(4), 889–918.
Larsson, J. P., & Thulin, P. (2019). Independent by necessity? The life satisfaction of necessity and opportunity entrepreneurs in 70 countries. Small Business Economics, 53(4), 921–934.
Lepoutre, J., Justo, R., Terjesen, S., & Bosma, N. (2013). Designing a global standardized methodology for measuring social entrepreneurship activity: The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor social entrepreneurship study. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 693–714.
Mardon, R., Molesworth, M., & Grigore, G. (2018). YouTube Beauty Gurus and the emotional labour of tribal entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 92, 443–454.
Matsuda, Y. (1984). The dismissal or workers under Japanese law. Stanford Journal of International Law, 20(2), 455–472.
Milanesi, M. (2018). Exploring passion in hobby-related entrepreneurship. Evidence from Italian cases. Journal of Business Research, 92, 423–430.
Mitteness, C., Sudek, R., & Cardon, M. S. (2012). Angel investor characteristics that determine whether perceived passion leads to higher evaluations of funding potential. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(5), 592–606.
Mueller, B. A., Wolfe, M. T., & Syed, I. (2017). Passion and grit: An exploration of the pathways leading to venture success. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(3), 260–279.
Naiki, E., & Ogane, Y. (2022). Human capital effects on fundraising for necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 59(2), 721–741.
Nikolova, M. (2019). Switching to self-employment can be good for your health. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(4), 664–691.
Nuscheler, D., Engelen, A., & Zahra, S. A. (2019). The role of top management teams in transforming technology-based new ventures’ product introductions into growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(1), 122–140.
Oster, E. (2019). Unobservable selection and coefficient stability: Theory and evidence. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 37(2), 187–204.
Pinillos, M. J., & Reyes, L. (2011). Relationship between individualist–collectivist culture and entrepreneurial activity: Evidence from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor data. Small Business Economics, 37(1), 23–37.
Piva, E., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2018). Human capital signals and entrepreneurs’ success in equity crowdfunding. Small Business Economics, 51(3), 667–686.
Reynolds, P., Bosma, N., Autio, E., Hunt, S., De Bono, N., Servais, I., Lopez-Garcia, P., & Chin, N. (2005). Global entrepreneurship monitor: Data collection design and implementation 1998–2003. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 205–231.
Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Bausch, A. (2011). Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), 441–457.
Sahasranamam, S., & Nandakumar, M. K. (2020). Individual capital and social entrepreneurship: Role of formal institutions. Journal of Business Research, 107, 104–117.
Santos, S. C., & Cardon, M. S. (2019). What’s love got to do with it? Team entrepreneurial passion and performance in new venture teams. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(3), 475–504.
Sarasvathy, S. (2004). Constructing corridors to economic primitives. Opportunity identification and entrepreneurial behavior (pp. 291–312). Information Age Publishing.
Schregle, J. (1993). Dismissal protection in Japan. International Labour Review, 132(4), 507–520.
Shah, S. K., & Tripsas, M. (2007). The accidental entrepreneur: The emergent and collective process of user entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 123–140.
Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469.
Shane, S., Kolvereid, L., & Westhead, P. (1991). An exploratory examination of the reasons leading to new firm formation across country and gender. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(6), 431–446.
Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154–170.
Shaw, G., & Williams, A. (2004). From lifestyle consumption to lifestyle production: Changing patterns of tourism entrepreneurship. Small firms in tourism (pp. 99–114). Routledge.
Singh, J. V., Tucker, D. J., & House, R. J. (1986). Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(2), 171–193.
Stam, W., Arzlanian, S., & Elfring, T. (2014). Social capital of entrepreneurs and small firm performance: A meta-analysis of contextual and methodological moderators. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 152–173.
Stephan, U., Tavares, S. M., Carvalho, H., Ramalho, J. J., Santos, S. C., & van Veldhoven, M. (2020). Self-employment and eudaimonic well-being: Energized by meaning, enabled by societal legitimacy. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(6), 106047.
Studenmund, A. H. (2016). Using econometrics. A practical guide (7th ed.). Harper Collins.
Toft-Kehler, R., Wennberg, K., & Kim, P. H. (2014). Practice makes perfect: Entrepreneurial-experience curves and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(4), 453–470.
Unger, J. M., Rauch, A., Frese, M., & Rosenbusch, N. (2011). Human capital and entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 341–358.
Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C., Léonard, M., Gagné, M., & Marsolais, J. (2003). Les passions de l’âme: On obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 756–767.
Van der Zwan, P., Thurik, A. R., Verheul, I., & Hessels, J. (2016). Factors influencing the entrepreneurial engagement of opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs. Eurasian Business Review, 6(3), 273–295.
van Stel, A., Storey, D. J., & Thurik, A. R. (2007). The effect of business regulations on nascent and young business entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 28(2–3), 171–186.
Warnick, B. J., Murnieks, C. Y., McMullen, J. S., & Brooks, W. T. (2018). Passion for entrepreneurship or passion for the product? A conjoint analysis of angel and VC decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(3), 315–332.
Wennekers, S., van Stel, A., Thurik, A. R., & Reynolds, P. (2005). Nascent entrepreneurship and the level of economic development. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 293–309.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank an anonymous referee, Masatoshi Kato, as well as the participants at the 2022 Spring Meeting of the Japanese Economic Association for their helpful comments. The data was provided by the Japan Finance Corporation Research Institute through the Social Science Japan Data Archive, Center for Social Research and Data Archives, Institute of Social Science, The University of Tokyo. All remaining errors are our own responsibility.
Funding
We acknowledge financial support from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) through Early-Career Scientists Nos. 19K13746, 19K13748, 22K13437, and 23K12506.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interest
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Naiki, E., Ogane, Y. Effects of entrepreneurial heterogeneity within necessity- and opportunity-based entrepreneurs on business performance. Int Entrep Manag J 20, 807–840 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-023-00903-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-023-00903-z